GR L 23229; (July, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23229 July 20, 1967
ANDRES P. BARING, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR M. CABAHUG, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Andres P. Baring (lessor) and Cesar M. Cabahug (lessee) entered into a five-year lease contract on June 26, 1960, for a parcel of land in Opon, Cebu, with a monthly rental of P75. Cabahug paid P375 upon signing as advance rental for five months. On December 3, 1960, he paid P75 as part payment for the next three-month period. Baring sent demand letters on February 1, 1961, and May 22, 1961, but Cabahug made no further payments. Baring sued for specific performance on February 8, 1962. Cabahug answered with a counterclaim for rescission, alleging misrepresentation by Baring that the land was formerly owned by Philippine Refining Co., Inc., and non-delivery of the subject lot. After trial commenced, a hearing was set for March 26, 1963. Neither Cabahug nor his counsel appeared on that date. Baring presented his evidence, and the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on June 28, 1963, ordering Cabahug to pay P2,250 as rentals, P300 attorney’s fees, and costs. Cabahug filed a motion for new trial on August 14, 1963, stating that his counsel’s non-appearance was due to the negligence of his office clerk who forgot and lost the notice of hearing, and that he had a valid defense of non-delivery of the land. The trial court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on excusable negligence and the alleged valid defense.
RULING
The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Motions for new trial rest on the sound discretion of the trial court. The negligence of counsel’s clerk in failing to note the hearing date and losing the notice is not excusable negligence. Counsel has a duty to adopt and maintain an efficient system to account for all court notices, and the negligence of the clerk is imputable to counsel due to lack of diligent supervision. Regarding the alleged defense of non-delivery of the land, the Court found it undeserving of a re-opening. Cabahug’s payment of P450 in rentals and his failure to complain about non-delivery for about a year and nine months, despite receiving two demand letters, belied his claim. The appealed order denying the motion for new trial was affirmed.